<p>My D asked me how many men she should date before deciding what she really wanted in a husband. I told her well, choosing a mate for life is way more important than choosing a college … just double the number of colleges you applied to. And remember, you can always apply to, er date, more.</p>
<p>To everyone saying that 21 schools means research wasn’t done:</p>
<p>When the OP was asked how her son ranked the 21 schools- the response was that they hadn’t been sorted out yet.
</p>
<p>There are certainly factors that influence applying to a large number of schools ( although I wouldn’t put appeasing relatives as one of them), but one would hope that the student has some idea of priorities when entering into the selection- for this student the quality of the physics programs would be relevant.</p>
<p>^Decent metaphor, bad conclusion.</p>
<p>There’s no minimum or maximum number of colleges/men to date, and there isn’t just one perfect one out there for you. They’re all perfect, and all imperfect. Almost every one offers the real prospect of happiness and requires some adjustment and meeting-halfway on your part. You “date” until you find one you really, really like and feel comfortable with, and who likes you back of course.</p>
<p>The difference is that you can date serially, but you more or less have to apply to colleges all at once. Also, with guys you can usually tell after 30 seconds if they are actually interested or just being polite, but with colleges you can’t. Also, you can learn a lot about colleges from your friends and acquaintances, and it isn’t creepy when they tell you the best parts.</p>
<p>^ JHS - Very thoughtful reply. Perhaps we can just use a statistical analysis. I think we can agree that there is some number too low to be “typical” and some number too high. sounds like a Gaussian Distribution. Mean and Median eight to twelve applications, which makes 21 schools … what?</p>
<p>The OP has pointed out that they were looking for merit- which warrants casting a wider net. Still those schools should be ones that the student would happily attend, but I don’t know if after admission will give enough time to find that out- not with so many anyway.</p>
<p>I believe there are resources to identify the schools with the strongest physics department. If that is more of a deal-breaker than cost, that could have helped to narrow down the list a bit. That is, if a school gives excellent FA but does not have a particularly good physics department, will it be selected over a more costly school with a better physics program? If the answer is no, then the list might have been able to be successfully trimmed earlier. It depends on what the major criteria are. To go with the dating analogy, smoking was a deal-breaker for me. Don’t care how bright, funny, attractive or whatever the guy was. If he smoked he was not dating material.</p>
<p>Does that mean that if the guy was smoking hot, he’s out?</p>
<p>Interesting choice of words, LP. But if it involved tobacco in any form, he was off the list.</p>
<p>So, is there an appropriate analogy in the college application search? IMO, even with wanting to go for the FA golden ring, especially if a particular major is desired, one should be able to pare the list down a bit more.</p>
<p>Actually, I think the OP was S was quite lazy. I’m sure there are many more schools like the 21 on the current application list. “Wide net” means W-I-D-E … not “a few more than the typical student applies to.” I say get back to work. Another 42 applications would triple the prospects for an optimal FA package.</p>
<p>Ok, lots of posts argue that we’ve been lazy, focusing on getting the applications in while not evaluating the schools until later. At 21 applications, it sure as heck didn’t feel like our son was being lazy this fall, but I understand the point.</p>
<p>So, what resources do you suggest using to compare the quality of undergraduate physics programs, especially of second tier liberal arts colleges? One poster suggested comparing the upper level physics courses offered. How about the number of full time physics faculty? Are scores from Rate My Professor worth considering? For the major research institutions, is it useful to consider the graduate school rankings in US News for undergraduate teaching, or are these biased or unhelpful to evaluating the undergraduate program? </p>
<p>Not so much lazy, as perplexed.</p>
<p>I certainly wouldn’t hazard a guess about physics programs, per se. Stipulating that there are probably more options at the larger schools, I would second the opinion of the poster who suggested looking at the course catalog and courses offered in any given year. That made my D eliminate some schools whose English department offerings were very slim. </p>
<p>One potentially more useful suggestion: There is a member of the CC community who goes by the name of QuantMech who appears to be a very amiable person (fellow? I’ve assumed, but I could be wrong). He/she is all about physics (very passionate, it appears), and might respond to a PM about specific programs or even suggest a method for evaluating in general. I have no idea if QuantMech answers PMs but I wouldn’t be surprised. He/she teaches at a state school, I seem to recall. If you write, tell him or her that absweetmarie from the Harvard/Baylor thread sent you!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what I assumed but guess what, I was wrong…</p>
<p>Why do we assume that QM is a male? </p>
<p>She is a very nice lady, and IMO one of the smartest folks on here, especially about science but about a number of other things as well.</p>
<p>Aargh! I did assume but figured there was a possibility I could be wrong. It has happened. Now it seems I was! It won’t be the last time. 
In any case, I have been part of a long thread with this QuantMech. I will second what bovertine said about her being nice and smart, at least as far as I can tell. And I will add: funny.</p>
<p>^^^
Don’t mean to hijack the thread, but I actually thought about why I jumped to that conclusion. My first degree, many moons ago, was Physics (it was only a BS and I know nothing about what good schools are for phyiscs). Anyway, I think I had at most a couple females in any of my classes, and I never had a female professor, so I guess I just mistakenly assumed things hadn’t changes and jumped to a conclusion.</p>
<p>I can’t remember if we actually had any female Physics profs when I went (UCSD in the 70s) but I know later they did because I’m pretty sure Sally Ride taught there for a while.</p>
<p>Back to the subject at hand.</p>
<p>Baywood,
I think you missed the tongue in cheek humor in NewHope’s post.</p>
<p>There used to be something called “The Gourman Report”, but I don’t know if there is a current publication. Dr. Jack Gourman ranked the undergrad and graduate programs. We looked at the physics department rankings when our oldest was looking at colleges. But it was a while back.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To the OP of this thread: You say affordability will be your FIRST consideration when the acceptances come in. You say you have a HIGH family contribution. If your son or daughter has a near full ride at a school he/she wants to attend, why not just withdraw the other applications now…you have what you have set out to attain.</p>
<p>With acceptance rates at the top schools so low, I think you were smart. If you don’t apply, you have self rejected yourself</p>
<p>RE: Ranking physics programs at LAC’s. Generally, there are not hundreds of physics majors at LAC’s. I would take a look at what each of the Physics grads from the past 3-4 years are doing. What grad schools did they get into and what kind of funding did they get? What places are they working for? Career Services and/or the head of the Physics Department at each school should know this…since most of the small LAC’s aren’t likely to have more than 20 or so Physics majors. Some will be double majors, and some may have no interest in Physics when they graduate…or may do something like Teach for America. But…it’s the kind of major that most kids who stick with it and graduate will probably want to do something with it. I would want to see that at least 50% of the physics majors are in “good” grad programs or jobs.</p>
<h1>of full time faculty and where they did their grad work is another measure.</h1>
<p>There is also specialized equipment needed for physics research. Does the department have all of the “basic” equipment (I have no idea what that is…but your son or his physics teach may be able to help out on that measurement.) Is there any equipment their department boasts about, and…for those in the "know"about physics…is it something they should be boasting about?</p>
<p>Just checking in to remark that I have sent baywood a PM, though pretty much with plain vanilla advice so far.</p>
<p>There is a lot of good advice given above, on this thread.</p>
<p>I appreciate the comments by absweetmarie and bovertine–but the comments have brought out my shy, at-least-semi-modest side, so I am planning to confine my further remarks on the thread topic to PM’s to baywood.</p>
<p>Although my username occasionally causes CC members to guess that I am the financial-type of quant, I do work in quantum mechanics. As far as gender stereotyping goes, don’t worry about it. I have to admit that I fall prey to it sometimes myself, and I <em>really</em> should not. (Oh, and things have changed a bit, but less than one might have hoped back at the time when bovertine and I were students.)</p>